Sunday, 10 June 2012

Boycott Wonder

Or My Thoughts On Creators Rights and Boycotts

DC comics, owned by Times Warner, and Marvel comics, owned
by Disney, are soulless corporations with dubious track records. DC comics is
notorious for screwing over their comic book creators from Siegel and Shuster
of Superman fame to, more recently, Alan Moore of Watchmen renown. Marvel has a
similar track record of being unethical in its dealings with creators, notably
the with their treatment of Jack Kirby, a comics legend who co-created the
majority of their properties.1Let
me be clear, this kind of behaviour is deplorable and is a big part of why I
try to spend the majority of my comics budget on creator owned-er-ish books. That
said, large corporations are phsychopathic hive-mind organisms designed only
for profit2 so this kind of behaviour is to be kind of expected, not
okay, but expected.

So in response to the fact DC and Marvel are
unapologetically kind of horrible, people have decided that the best response
is to boycott all association with these companies. Writers Chris Roberson and Roger
Langridge have very publicly broken all professional ties with DC and Marvel
comics. Similarly, I have encountered a number of people online who have
decided to boycott these publishers as well the consumer side.3 To a
certain extent, I think these are laudable decisions: making principled
judgments and being conscientious of your spending habits are pretty impressive
things. It’s especially ambitious for the Roberson and Langridge, as their principled
choices may have long term consequences for their careers.

Also, and I can’t
state it enough, it’s very much not okay what Marvel and DC have done, and
vocal advocacy for creator rights is important to ensuring a future of great
comics.

But here’s the thing, I’m not convinced boycotting Marvel
and DC is the best solution. And here’s why:

1. It probably won’t work. When I was in high school I decided to
boycott McDonalds in a very I-am-a-young-person-with-pretentions kind of way.4
The boycott lasted for 2 or 3
years and, based on the continued existence of the same ol’ McDonalds, didn’t
work all that well. The reason for this is pretty obvious: the majority of
people kept patronizing McDonalds. For boycotts to affect change a lot of
people have to agree, all at once, to stop buying a particular business’
products. I get the impression that the majority of comic book readers are
either ignorant of creator rights issues, have decided that a boycott is too
drastic, or just don’t care about creators rights. I’m inclined to believe that
ignorance is the largest issue.5 Knowledge about creator rights controversies
isn’t something a new comics reader is instantly imbued with. It took me reading
a lot of comic books to appreciate creators as talented individuals and it took
being exposed to comics journalism and punditry to understand that creative
rights are an issue. I doubt that everyone makes that journey. Therefore, I am unconvinced that a boycott
will have enough of an impact on comics sales to change how Marvel and DC treat
creators.

2. Access to living wage. Before Before Watchmen created a broad
internet discussion6 of creator’s rights on the internet, the
corners of the comics blogosphere I followed were discussing women in
mainstream comics: how sexist the portrayals of female characters are and the
shortage of women creators at DC and Marvel.7 The fact female
creators are not employed in great numbers at the big two was considered to be
a barrier to women working in comics: work-for-hire at Marvel and DC is a
reliable source of income and carriers fewer risks than independent publishing.
Not to mention the pure economics of it: Marvel and DC command ~65% of the
marketshare in April 20128 meaning that ALL independent comics,
which have more creator costs associated with them, account for only ~35% sales
in the direct market. Moreover much of that ~35% is from established writers.
This leads me to infer that most comic book writers who work for Marvel/DC and
do creator owned-er-ish work are paying their mortgages and feeding their kids primarily
with Marvel/DC paychecks. Sort of a case in point in my mind is the career path
of Kieron Gillen and Jamie McKelvie, who had to cancel/put-on-hiatus Phonogram,
a stellar series, due to the difficulty in making enough money via independent
publishing.

In an interview about the end of
phonogram Gillen stated:

“There's a difference between making only a little money and starving.
We're very much in the latter. Jamie's lucky to get a couple of hundred dollars
from an issue. While he didn't tell me about this until after it was all done,
there were three occasions when Jamie was seriously considering throwing in the
towel. The problem is that Image's deal is a back-end one. Will we make some
money off the trade? Maybe. And that's a
big maybe. But that means Jamie not earning any money for the six months it
would take to draw it, which is the main reason why we took over a year to do 7
issues. As in, every time Jamie ran out of money, he had to stop and do
something else. A couple of hundred dollars doesn't cover rent or pay for his
fashionable haircuts. And doing this bitty work f--ks up the production anyway,
because you can't concentrate or plan. You just spend your entire life in
low-level money panic.

Frankly, Jamie is just shy of thirty and one of the most talented
illustrators of his generation. Even I'm not a big a bastard enough to want him
to spend another year in "Phonogram"'s brand of hell. He deserves a
paycheck.”

-Kieron Gillen, from an interview with
John Parker at ComicsAlliance.9

Now both of these awesome creators
have found work-for-hire gigs at Marvel which has allowed them to continue to
make comic books full time. Moreover, the financial security in writing for
Marvel seems to have provided the safety net to do more creator owned work
since Gillen has 4 independent books upcoming, one of which is a third chapter
of Phonogram drawn by McKelvie.10 It seems to me then that boycotting
Marvel and DC is taking away an avenue for creators to make a living. Unless of
course the boycott comes with an equal amount of money spent on creator-owned-er-ish
comics.

3. Cultivating an audience. It seems to me that employment at Marvel
and DC is a way to raise ones profile as a creator and to attract new readers. The
first independent comic I ever bought was an issue of Ed Brubaker and Sean
Phillips’ Criminal, an epically good crime noir series. I was motivated to
try Criminal because I was already familiar with (and enjoying) Ed Brubaker’s
writing on Captain America and The Immortal Ironfist. In fact, this process of
finding talented authors through mainstream cape comics and then trying their
independent works is what convinced me to try a lot of books: I read Matt Fraction
before Casanova, Joe Kelly before Four Eyes, Kathryn and Stuart Immonen before Moving
Pictures, Jason Aaron before Scalped and Brian K Vaughan before Y the Last Man.
I suspect this is typical of how many readers decide which creator owned comics
to try.In an interview about his work at
Marvel, Jonathon Hickman said:

“… Eric Stephenson [said:]… "This is what everyone should be
doing: Books you own. Be men of your own destiny and whatnot." And I get
it, I agree. But also, it would be foolish for me to pretend that the numbers I
was doing on, say, Pax Romana and the numbers we're doing on Red Wing, that the
gap between [during which Hickman started at Marvel] had no effect on it,
especially since they increased by quite a bit. So it's good for Marvel for me
to be writing Marvel books, and it's good for me to be writing Marvel books,
and I continue to be successful there. I love all those guys, man. They're
fantastic.”

-Jonathon Hickman, from an interview
with Chris Sims at ComicsAlliance.11

This indicates to me that
employment at Marvel and DC is an effective way to increase sales of creator
owned works. It also suggests to me that Jonathon Hickman knows this and is
working at Marvel for the advertisement as much as for the paychecks. I’m also tempted to speculate about the return
of Phonogram, which as I discussed in the last section, was originally ended
for economic reasons.On the decision to make more
Phonogram Kieron Gillen had this to say:

“And finally: we said we couldn’t do any further Phonogram. We’re doing
more Phonogram. What’s changed? Circumstances have changed. Sorry to play
enigmatic, but it’s just financial stuff and the day when the most important
thing about Phonogram are lines on a graph is the day the little Phonofairy
dies.”

-Kieron
Gillen, from his Workblog12

So it would seem the decision to resurrect
the title has a financial element. I would speculate that Kieron Gillen and
Jamie McKelvie’s work for Marvel has, besides providing paychecks, advertised
their prowess as creators to readers that had previously been unaware of them.
This newly cultivated readership may have bought the trade paperbacks of
previous Phonogram collections and might be counted on to buy new issues of
Phonogram, and this could be why the title is now sufficiently financially
viable for a third chapter to be made. Speculation, speculation, speculation. So,
boycotting Marvel and DC comics would seem to be detrimental to the ability of
creators to advertise their independent works.

4. Creator owned imprints and company owned classics. This point is
rather small, and probably the weakest in the list, but, DC and Marvel publish
creator owned-er-ish comics through imprints like Vertigo and Icon. From what I
can tell, these imprints offer additional support to creators that they might
not get from other independent publishing houses or at least a more established
audience. The unethical corporations that own Marvel and DC profit from these
companies, however so do the creators, who to a certain extent own their work
at these imprints. So, I would argue these imprints are worth patronizing as
purchasing Vertigo and Icon comics does put money directly into the hands of
creators. In a similar vein, many amazing comics are owned in some part by
Marvel or DC. It’s nearly impossible to read Alan Moore comics (and give Alan
Moore money) without giving DC comics money as they own his DC work, his
Wildstorm work, and his America’s Best Comics work. Also, great comics like
Scalped, Casanova, Criminal, Transmetropolitan, and Y the Last Man (which is
the ultimate gateway comic for new readers in my experience) are all tied up
with either Marvel or DC. Even if all you read is creator-owned-er-ish comics in
an effort to put money in the hands of creators, it’s tough not to give DC or
Marvel at least some of your money.

5. It gets better… A sad reality of many long term injustices is that
things don’t suddenly become just. When things do improve its generally pretty
gradual… which is really pretty tragic. The borderline theft of Superman from Siegel
and Shuster and the screwing over of Jack Kirby, and to a lesser extent Stan
Lee, by DC and Marvel were worse than the screwing over of Alan Moore and
company, as their contract at least kind of allowed for their retention of
creator rights and royalties. I’d also argue that if Watchmen and V for
Vendetta were not foisted by the petard of their commercial and critical
success Moore and company would have gotten complete ownership of their creations13,
something that would never happen for Simon, Shuster and Kirby.Warren Ellis, when discussing the
use of his Extremis Ironman storyline in the upcoming Iornman 3 movie stated:

“FAQ: yes, IRON MAN 3 is apparently using elements of my IRON MAN:
EXTREMIS comics serial. No, I don't get money or credit…That's how work-for-hire works: Marvel
owns the work. I knew it when I signed the vouchers [and] made the decision,
[and] I can live with it… Also, RED 2, based on work I *do* own (with artist
[Cully Hamner]!) will be in cinemas next year! And my new novel will be out
next January… (Also also: this is one reason why I've spent the majority of my
career in comics doing more creator-owned work than work-for-hire.)”

-Warren
Ellis, from a series of Tweets14

This indicates to me that DC and
Marvel in the modern world are very explicit about what constitutes
work-for-hire and what is creator owned. Now, it is kind of sad that creators
(Ellis) won’t see financial reward for their work (Extremis) in a work-for-hire
scheme, but if it’s honest and above board, it is as I’ve discussed above a
mutually beneficial relationship. As a Science Graduate student (which is kind
of like being a Science Apprentice), my supervisor (boss/principal
investigator) owns all of the work I do (if it leads to a nobel prize, which is
very unlikely, he will be the one to receive it), as such I am essentially work
for hire. That said, I get mentorship, a paycheck, access to reagents and apparatuses,
as well as authorship credentials from all my published work which will assist
in my career development. This is a reality of most intellectual and creative
employment gigs, I suspect. To expect Marvel and DC not to do explicit
work-for-hire employing is a little bit unrealistic and as long as any such work
is explicitly stated as such it is not unethical.On getting the rights to iZombie
back from DC following his severing ties to the company Chris Roberson said:

“No,
it’s actually tied to new work no longer being commissioned, which is
suggestive in and of itself that the creator-owned contracts within DC have
been changed, so that going out of print is no longer the trigger. Suggesting
that someone at DC realized that that maybe wasn’t the best way to go. So now
withiZombie, the rights will
revert a certain amount of time after Mike Allred and I are no longer
commissioned to do new work.”

-Chris
Roberson, from an interview with Tim Hodler at The Comics Journal15

Roberson also stated:

“…now if you work for DC and you create a character that appears in one
of their books, and then years down the line it’s an action figure or it
appears in a movie or appears in a TV show or gets republished or whatever the
case may be, the person that created that character gets a check.”

-Chris
Roberson, from an interview with Tim Hodler at The Comics Journal16

This quotes explicitly states that
creator owned works, at least at DC, are tied to a fairer system for creators: a
period of not working for DC. Roberson and artist Mike Allred, or their estates,
will regain the rights to iZombie regardless of its publication status. Also,
it would appear that creations within DCs main line also come with a remuneration
process for creators. So things might not be perfect… but they are better. I’d
argue continued advocacy for creators rights could make things better within
the existing system.

So, yeah, I’m not convinced that
boycotting DC and Marvel is the best solution to their crappy behaviour. I
think the key to improving things for creators relies instead on more proactive
solutions, namely spending more of one’s comics budget on creator owned comics
(even those owned by Marvel and DC) and educating readers to the importance of
respecting creators rights. Corporations are organisms that feed on profits and
they make decisions to maximize profits. Therefore, I’d suggest that the key to
making Marvel and DC behave better is to convince them that there is more profit
in being mindful to treat their artists and writers with respect and to have
avenues for creators to share in the success of their creations. Advocacy for
creators rights from comics journalists, creators, shop owners, and readers can
help change the public perception, which would create a publicity incentive for
Marvel/DC to do right by creators. Increasing the market share of independent comics
would work even better as it would provide freedom for creators and create a
financial insentive for Marvel and DC to pursue more creator owned works. I imagine
that if 50% of comics sales were independent, Marvel and DC would be very
interested in building a mechanism to tap into those profits1
Moreover, if the market for independent books was that healthy the talented
people who make comics could choose, without threat of financial ruin, not to work
with Marvel and DC and pursue a totally independent publishing career. In such
a market new writers could use independent comics publishing as a livelihood,
instead of an audition for the big two. Moreover, that kind of freedom would
force Marvel and DC to treat creators better to attract the kind of A-list
talent that they currently enjoy. It would probably also lead to an increase in
the diversity of comics stories in North America.To go back to an earlier idea: look
at McDonalds, which is trying very hard to convince us that it has healthier
options. It certainly didn’t do this because it cares about peoples’ health. It’s
a corporation, so this choice was entirely profit driven: McDonalds has a PR
problem with being very unhealthy and healthier seeming fast food options like
Subway have gained massive market share. Therefore, it would seem that the
hive-mind collective of McDonalds have decided that there are profits to be had
in appearing healthy. I think something like this is how we trick Marvel and DC
into being better companies.So, I won’t be going out of my way
to not spend money at DC or Marvel. Instead I’m going to make sure I spend the
majority of comics budget on creator owned comics and advocate for creators as
much as my tiny internet soapbox will allow me. Hopefully, that way things will
get better and the people who make the awesome comics I love will be able to
continue to make a living without being screwed.

4: I had problems with the way their “I’m lovin’ it!”
campaign seemed designed to target particular urban demographics that, due in
large part to economic pressure, have issues with access to proper nutrition. I
have since come to conclusion that “I’m lovin’ it!” was more of an effort to
appear more modern and cool, and that my earlier conclusions were, well, kind
of racist. High school me was a pretentious shit head who didn’t know very much
and lacked the good sense to be honest about it. Adultish me still maintains
that the way fast food companies target the economically pressured and children
is deplorable and is contributing to a plague of metabolic disorders (I
research heart disease for a living in a diabetes lab and I have an axe to
grind). Adultish me also thinks, for the sake of good health, EVERYONE should
eat less fast food.

5: Brouhaha, if you will.

6: I think ignorance is the problem in all kinds of
different sectors of life.

7: This is still very much a problem. Methinks I’ll probably write about it at some point.

No comments:

Post a Comment

My Ten Atoll Comics

Bitch Planet

Black Widow

Giant Days

Karnak

Pretty Deadly

Spider-Woman

The Unbeatable Squirrel Girl

Vision

Atoll Comics

UPDATES: M-W-F

Due to poverty and an urge to buy better comics, I have decided to be super-selective about which superhero comics I read. Harnessing the Awesome Power of Maths, I have determined that I can afford to read 10 ongoing titles. So I get to read 10, and only 10, titles published by either Marvel or DC (as well as one creator owned trade paperback a week). This blog is me working through deciding which 10 superhero titles are the 10 worthiest of reading and discussing why creator owned comics are amazing.

Categories

About Me

I'm a Science Graduate Student who loves comic books, enjoys novels, and needs practice writing. Welcome to my nonsense.
I post links to updates at atollcomics.tumblr.com if you tumblrs.
You can follow me on Twitter @mbround